Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/British logistics in the Falklands War/archive1
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was promoted by Sarastro1 via FACBot (talk) 23:10, 17 August 2018 [1].
British logistics in the Falklands War[edit]
This article is about an aspect of the Falklands War. If you've heard of this war, you're probably Gen X or older. It has long since become an historical footnote, but is of great interest to logisticians as a high-intensity conflict fought with modern weapons in a remote location lacking roads, thousands of miles from the nearest bases. The article has an A class review. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:30, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
SC[edit]
Reads nicely and very little to pick up on (unsurprising, as it's had the A Class review). I'm having to nit-pick to find even these two so far, but:
- "to the height of a mexeflote" – just to help those of us who need to click away, perhaps "to the height of a mexeflote landing raft"?
- "supply was therefore Freetown in Sierra Leone": I'm not sure the "therefore" is needed
Done to the end of "Logistical", with more to come. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 13:25, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
- "650 Argentine Prisoners of War" - should that be "prisoners of war"?
- "defuze" - that's rather archaic in normal language - it is used with that spelling in military circles, or would "defuse" serve better?
That's it from me. It reads very well and is very informative. I have absolutely no knowledge of logistics, particularly in the military, so this is a prose review only, per my caveat. - SchroCat (talk) 17:16, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
CommentsSupport from PM[edit]
Nice article, I remember reading blow-by-blow accounts of the Falklands War over breakfast in the Australian as a teenager... Formed part of my motivation for joining the Army a couple of years later.
- I'm not familiar with Hercules aircraft being used to do airdrops to ships. How did that work?
- The goods are parachute dropped in a waterproof container. Added this. I looked for a more technical description, found details of the missions flown and aircraft involved and even photographs of the drops. Also added a bit about Mission "Ursula", in which a colonel was parachuted into the ocean. Hope this is enough. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:44, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
- yomp is a bit colloquial/jargonish
- the bit in the lead about Sandy Woodward's observations isn't covered in the body, which also needs further explanation of what other factors drove this assessment
- in the lead, suggest "from the Falkland Islands, which had an airfield." I assume it also had a port which was important logistically? This port detail seems to be missing from the Ascension Island section as well.
- might be worth mentioning in the lead that the 500 rnds per gun was stocked by helos
- might be worth explicitly pointing out when first mentioned that 3 Commando Bde was a RM organisation and that the paras and 5th Bde were Army.
- what were the prime movers? Or were these just Bedford trucks? And if the tpt sqn wasn't taken, where did the 54 "prime movers" come from (sounds like most of a sqn to me)
- trim "Over the next few weeks the BFSU ballooned to over 800 personnel in the first three weeks"
- worth mentioning that the Herc is a transport
- 1000 meals a day on the island? Shouldn't that be 3000 for 1000 pers?
- suggest "For this reason, peacetime financial restraints had precluded the RN from practicing beaching manoeuvres."
- link Mexeflote on first mention
- I think a bit more is needed regarding the bow loading of the LSLs and the impact it had. Were they reloaded, and how were they discharged into the mexeflotes and LC, by crane?
- STUFT were a poor substitute? As it appears to be used here in a plural sense.
- suggest "The STUFT also took 90,000 rations with them"
- what was done to discharge the STUFT that Clapp withdrew?
- Herc airdrops to ships? How did that work?
- "These were reserved for night operations. To allow the crews to rest, and necessary aircraft maintenance to be performed, they were not employed during the day. " contains a bit of redundancy
- "On 24 May 11" needs a comma
- "exceeded the forecast"?
- "The final four-day
s" - 59 Sqn is referred to differently in different spots, making it unclear it is the same unit
- 50 Fd Sqn? Where did they come from?
- Did the workshops remain afloat until Stanley was captured, or did they move into the BMA before that?
- operated by the NAAFI or EFI?
- the original version of fn 15 is now 404 so can be dispensed with
- fn 105 is now 404
That's me done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:56, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
- Looks good. Supporting. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:03, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
Support Fifelfoo[edit]
Support. Reviewed on: 1b weighting, 1c (completeness, sourcing, HQRS, historiography, PRIMARY/TERTIARY use, "white myths," class / gender / colour query, plagiarism style check, plagiarism spot check, if sources support claims spot check), 1d neutral, 2b weight & structure, 2c citation check Fifelfoo (talk) 11:23, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
- 1a: Good. I found some smart quotes… “”. So yeah, I checked your double quotes throughout. IFTFY.
- One fixit: Minor: "It was also missing 383 Commando Petroleum Troop, as this was made up of reservists, who were not called up." What was missing? The noun can't be readily located in previous sentences. 3 Commando? 54 Commando Logistics?
- lmftfy en versus em in body
- 1b: Done: Comprehensive (weight)
- 1c: Done: Research completeness
- 1c: Done: checked what are the major sources, their dates, their use structure
- 1c: Done: Checks out: Where are the HQRS used, and the lower QRS? Check whether analytical claims are cited against authorative/seminal HQRS?
- Done: Full cite in citations: lQRS used for trivium, appropriate to their level.
- Done: Bibliography, PRIMARIES: Uses checked as appropriate (Movements, reassignments, orders, construction actions, no analysis hangs on them): Clapp, Fursdon (in EXPERT area, cited supplementary to HQRS narrative for EXPERTise), Gardiner, Hellberg, Jolly, Pook (double cited against other unknown on trivium), Thomson 1985, Van der Bijl
- Done: Bibliography, publishers/modes not known to reviewer, Brown (EXPERT, gpreview), Burden (lower QRS, trivium weight appropriate)
- Done: Checks out: sandbox, strip (what you consider) primaries / lQRS, check HQRS narrative as you do it. (Why did I do this?, because I could identify PRIMARY uses easily when reading, but couldn't identify lQRS uses as well and wanted to check weight/structure)
- 1c: Done: Query: Was there any historiographical debate WEIGHTY to include?
- High-quality sources are used throughout. The article is only about British logistics, and the islands are called the Falklands throughout, per WP:COMMONNAME, but obviously a NPOV issie. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:54, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
- I definitely agree on this, but I more meant, did the history itself generate interesting historiographical debate, "Despite the Joan School emphasising X, a new appreciation has extended this in the Bob School." I don't expect that such would exist here, but I think it is worth asking for our high quality history articles. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:39, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
- High-quality sources are used throughout. The article is only about British logistics, and the islands are called the Falklands throughout, per WP:COMMONNAME, but obviously a NPOV issie. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:54, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
- 1c: Done: Query: For debates in military science as a discipline, "For the RAF, the primary lesson of the war was the utility of aerial refuelling…" Did the Argentinians, or other powers, react with military science findings as a result of the war? Privratsky, Kenneth L. (1 April 1986)? Valovcin, Paul (February 1992)?
- Expanded the lessons to an entire section. I would like to editorialise here. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:54, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
- Brilliant. I expected this might be the , as the British military science response already existed in the article. I can understand the temptation to editorialise given Thompson's block quote, which translated from bureaucratese is very hard on deficiencies. Thanks, will read as I complete this review. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:39, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
- Expanded the lessons to an entire section. I would like to editorialise here. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:54, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
- 1c: Done: Checking for appropriate use of PRIMARY TERTIARY sources. Full citations in footnotes checked. Bibliography checked (see above in relation to HQRS/lQRS use).
- 1c: Done: Query: One problem identified in wikipedia is the sanitisation of articles, often by not-reflecting HQRS consensus / scholarly consensus. This can be called "white myths" or "Myth of the Clean Wehrmacht". Improper military conducts could be (based off unpalatable military history in general): improper putting down of the PoW riot; forced requisition, billeting and housing (civil population); and, improper labour use of PoWs. When you were reading did any of these emerge in the sources?
- No issues of this kind. Alfredo Astiz was wanted by France and Sweden in relation to crimes committed elsewhere, but the Geneva Convention did not permit prisoners to be handed over to a third party, and he was returned to Argentina. I don't know if this is worth mentioning in the article. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:54, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
- 1c: Done: Query: A similar problem is blindness to the major categories of social history. Based on your reading of the HQRS consensuses do you feel the article appropriately covers class / gender / race? In this article I'm particularly thinking of gender, and in relation to STUFT—class (owner complaint? seaman industrial issues?).
- 1c: Done: Clean: Plagiarism style check
- 1c: Done: Clean: Plagiarism spot check [7 (futon)]
- 1c: Done: Clean: Spot-check if claims are in sources [7 (futon, trivium)]. Didn't have the time resource to check HQRS
- 1d: Done: Appears neutral over repeated rereadings to do this.
- 1e: Done: Its stable
- 2b: Done: Query: When you developed the article's structure and weight what HQRS literature inspired the article's consensus?
- The article draws mostly on Privatsky, Freedman and Thompson. Its structure is similar to Privratsky, in that it is geographical-chronological-topical, but this is also the structure I employed in my PhD thesis. I discussed the logistics of the campaign with Thompson in 2005. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:54, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
- 2c: Done: Citations checked: consistent. Footnotes checked: consistent.
- 2c: Done: Miscited: lmftfy so far.
- 3: Done: Query: The image captioned, "Key locations and the routes taken by British land forces during the Falklands War" is rather terse about unit designations. M&AW, for example, meant nothing to me until I'd spent some time searching?
- Added a legend explaining that SAS = Special Air Service; SBS = Special Boat Squadron; M&AW = Mountain and Arctic Warfare Cadre (the Special Forces of the British Army, Royal Navy and Royal Marines respectively) Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:54, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
- 3: Done: Query: I'm assuming the map reflects your understanding of consensus of the war?
- 3: Done: The blockquote "The majority of senior officers and their staffs were handicapped by a dearth of understanding of the logistic realities…" is appropriately chosen.
- 4: Done: I can't see a useful possibility of reducing length. Sub-articles wouldn't stand well on their own. This makes me think the length is appropriate.
Support Comments from JennyOz[edit]
Hi Hawkeye7, thoroughly readable, fascinating and informative. (And yes I remember it, seemed to come out of nowhere and be over quickly.) As usual most of my comments are gnomish plus suggested wlinks...
- For the first time in British history - in British military history?
- One British prisoner was held in Argentina, Flight Lieutenant Jeffrey Glover, who was released on 16 July. - read better? One British prisoner, Flight Lieutenant Jeffrey Glover, was held in Argentina; he released on 16 July. (You could link him, it redirects to the skirmish.)
- opened by Prince Andrew - too trivial to mention that he had served there?
- it was supplied by Toronto through a dracones moored offshore - is that one or plural?
- sea-keeping - wlink?
caption: landing map - SBS = Special Boat Squadron needs dabalready fixed- Argentinian prisoners v Argentine prisoners
- Argentine prisoners at Goose Green - wlink Goose Green?
- and other stores including tent accommodation - 'other' not necessary or are the helicopters considered stores?
- dispatched v despatched
- Brigadier Julian Thompson - refine wlink to Brigadier (United Kingdom)?
- had been dismantled for maintenance work - 'the' maintenance work (because maintenance already mentioned prev sentence)
- take on sea water as ballast - seawater one word?
- producing potable water - wlink potable or add (drinking)?
- Wlinked potable water
- low intensity patients - is that definitely low 'intensity' not low 'dependency' patients?
- As minor injuries such as trench foot were anticipated, this was undesirable. - it was undesirable for them to be treated on Uganda?
- Royal Naval Reserve doctors were called up for service in the UK - ambiguous? from UK to go with task force or used in UK to treat homecoming?
- but these were soon swamped by the requirements - overwhelmed
- all contractors or employees, or the families of contractors or employees, - just 'and their families'
- Doesn't read right
- sending people back on the planes they arrived on - to where, UK?
parachuted into the sea and plucked from the water - was pluckedalready fixed- 30 Signal Regiment - wlink
- H-hour - wlink
- Rick Jolly - wlink
- The Queen Elizabeth 2 was met by a veritable fleet - is 'the' needed?
- To avoid any confusion with Queen Elizabeth II Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:05, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
- Farnella - RV Odyssey Explorer
- Snowcats - wlink
- prize crew - wlink
- Aftermath "Built in the 1970s, the airfield" - Port Stanley Airport doesn't seem to have been linked yet. Do here or at "matting earmarked for repairing the airfield at Port Stanley"?
- para starts "With the end of hostilities," but further in says "By 20 June 10,250 prisoners had been repatriated. Only 593 remained, including Menéndez. These were held for intelligence gathering, and to encourage Argentina to end hostilities" - But Menéndez surrendered 14 June, hmmm I went back and looked at A-class review..., maybe add 'other' before hostilities and maybe with link to Operation Keyhole?
- King Edward VII Memorial Hospital - wlink
- British Forces Falkland Islands - wlink
- where it was the subject organised teaching and research at - subject of?
- Atlantic Conveyor - not linked in lede per others
- Hecate - wlink HMS Hecate (A137)
- RMS St Helena - wlink RMS St Helena (1963)
- Farnella - RV Odyssey Explorer
- Leeds Castle - HMS Leeds Castle (P258)
- In the meantime it was supplied by Toronto - should be Fort Toronto?
- ordered to advance to Estancia House - I wondered what this building was, maybe precede with 'the settlement of'?
- ref Brown, David (1987). The Royal Navy and the Falklands War - check OCLC
- Rick Jolly - author link
Thanks, JennyOz (talk) 14:57, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
Tony1[edit]
- The hyphen in "re-take" is rare, and here an unnecessary disruption in the opening phrase.
- Is there a sense in the opening sentence that the campaign was specifically designed to do it in 1982?
- Changed to "The 1982 British military campaign to recapture the Falkland Islands" Hawkeye7 (discuss) 10:09, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
- Why repeat the year in the third sentence? And could we abbreviate the name so soon after? Perhaps: "Argentina's invasion of the Falklands in April had come ...".
- That's a very long sentence. Could there be a semicolon after "down"?
- "Ships Taken Up From Trade "—The linked article does not upcase, and nor should it. I don't care what ignorant military clerks write (they upcase everything in sight); on WP we minimise capping.
- De-capped, per MOS:CAPSACRS. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 10:09, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
- Is there a rationale for using nautical miles in the second para, but not in the first? And I must say that it really gums up the text to flash three units at readers every time. Naval experts know how to convert, silently, if it matters that much to them.
- "there was only a small hardstand area for parking aircraft, and no parallel taxiways"—grammar. Same problem in the subsequent sentence, which also contains a comma splice.
- Removed the first comma? Not sure what to do with the other sentence. @Dank:
- "This was used". What is the referent: "an anchorage"?
- "and as a base for Hercules transport aircraft, which were modified by the addition of auxiliary fuel tanks and aerial refuelling capability"—was the modification in situ, at the time, ongoing? If not, "had been" might be better.
- "which were modified by the addition of auxiliary fuel tanks and aerial refuelling capability. With the support of Victor tankers, they were able to deliver priority supplies to the South Atlantic." First, does "they" refer to the fuel tanks? Second, did these aircraft actually deliver, or just have the ability to do so? And it's not clear whether it's their modifications + support of Victor tankers that enabled the delivery. Pity about "capability ... able", but I can't think of an alternative. Perhaps that region of text needs recasting to clarify the causality.
That's the opening two paragraphs. Not yet ready for promotion. Tony (talk) 05:31, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
Hawkeye, good changes, but watch the passive voice where you have to wait for a phrase before getting the agency. The Argentine military has already been referred to; then we have:
- "A base was developed at Ascension Island, a British territory in the mid-Atlantic 3,700 nautical miles (6,900 km) from the UK and 3,300 nautical miles (6,100 km) from the Falkland Islands with an airfield." Could we repeat the actor at the risk of repetition?
- "The Royal Navy developed a base with an airfield at Ascension Island, a British territory in the mid-Atlantic 3,700 nautical miles (6,900 km) from the UK and 3,300 nautical miles (6,100 km) from the Falkland Islands." This also solves (does it?) the ungainliness of the airfield right at the end.
- Changed to "The British Army and Royal Navy developed a base at Ascension Island, a British territory in the mid-Atlantic 3,700 nautical miles (6,900 km) from the UK and 3,300 nautical miles (6,100 km) from the Falkland Islands." There is a repetition of "British" now. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:52, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
- "There was an anchorage, but no port facilities, just a lone jetty." You haven't fixed the comma splice. Is this a solution? ""There was an anchorage, but no port facilities—just a lone jetty." Or less marked: ""There was an anchorage, but no port facilities aside from a lone jetty."
- Some of the long sentences need taming, and the grammar is a bit la-de-da at the start: "A serious loss was that of SS Atlantic Conveyor, which was struck by a missile and sank with three Chinook and six Wessex helicopters still on board, ..." What about: "The loss of SS Atlantic Conveyor was a setback: it was struck by a missile and sank with three Chinook and six Wessex helicopters on board, ...". Note my removal of "still".
- Then we have adjacent sentences starting with the same phrase. Changed to "SS Atlantic Conveyor was struck by a missile, and sank... The loss of the helicopters on Atlantic Conveyor was a serious blow;
- "Yomp"—the article linked says it's slang. Is this appropriate? Readers shouldn't have to click on a link to extract a non-technical meaning.
- The issue here is that it does have a technical meaning. In the Australian Army, we would call it a "route march"; the US Army calls it a "forced foot march"; in the British Army it is a "loaded march". Our article is called loaded march; the others redirect to it. If I just wrote "marched" the reader might well visualise parade marching. So I would need to use and link loaded march. The question then becomes whether that is a better term and article than yomp, which is more evocative of the Falklands War. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:52, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
- Again, some passive voice is ok, but: "were destroyed ... were established ... were stocked ...".
- Another snake tamed? "Some 500 rounds per gun were stocked at the gun positions by helicopters to enable the artillery to support the attacks on the mountains ringing Port Stanley, resulting in the surrender of the Argentine forces on 14 June." What about: "Some 500 rounds per gun were stocked at the gun positions by helicopters, enabling the artillery to support the attacks on the mountains ringing Port Stanley. The result was the surrender of the Argentine forces on 14 June." I might have changed the meaning at the end undesirably, but you could find a way that suits.
Now that's just the lead. Tony (talk) 15:25, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
WCM[edit]
Thank you for inviting me to review your nomination, I have some knowledge of the Falklands War, though my speciality is really Falklands history.
- YOMP or Your Own Marching Pace (allegedly). This is a term unique to the Royal Marines, the Paras TAB (Tactical Advance to Battle). After the loss of the Atlantic Conveyor the Paras and Marines TABbed/YOMPed across the islands. You may have inadvertently favoured one side in a cap badge battle.
- South Georgia - maybe a little too much information but it may be worth mentioning that the "scrap workers" included Argentine Marines, their parading and raising of the Argentine flag pretty much kicked off the confrontation.
- I don't see it mentioned anyway but the original Argentine plan called for a much later invasion. If the Argentines had invaded to their original schedule, Invincible would have been sold to Australia and both Fearless and Intrepid would have been in mothballs. It would have been more difficult for the British to respond, ironically when they moved up the schedule, they made the British recovery possible.
- The Rapier missile system shown is the wrong version, this is from a much later development. Are there no photos available for the period?
- Have a look at commons:Category:Rapier missiles and see it there's one you like. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:56, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
- I believe you've missed a significant incident from the first day. Argentine forces at Fanning Head ambushed 3 helicopters, shooting down 2 Gazelle and damaging a Sea King that was dropping supplies. Dealing with this threat caused a significant delay.
- Regarding the Red and Green Life Machine, there is a fairly amusing anecdote from Rick Jolly concerning a "Water Heater, Field Kitchen, Portable". This was the sole source of hot water for the surgical team at Ajax Bay. It was loaned from an American unit for a crate of beer, the British kit they were supposed to use never made it ashore.
- Foxtrot 4, an LCU from HMS Fearless was lost on 8 June.
- The repairs to the airfield at Stanley after the conflict, its worth mentioning that the Argentine attempts to repair the airstrip were somewhat amateur affairs. Effectively they had to dig the lot out and start again.
- The Australian experience at Tarakan was that repairing craters is a lot more difficult than it looks.
- Not sure if its worth mentioning, the Argentine cemetery was built in 1983 after the personal intervention of Margaret Thatcher, the Argentine military was posturing still about the dead and refusing to help in their identification. A significant portion of the Argentine dead were buried as unknowns as a result.
- The treatment of the dead differs greatly from one country to another. In Turkey, they put a skull with a bullet between the eye sockets on display in a museum as "Turkish soldier with .303 bullet that killed him"; this would not happen in Australia. I don't know if they put much on identification of the dead in Argentina. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:56, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
Its a really excellent article and clearly a lot of work has gone into it, my compliments. WCMemail 00:15, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
- Thank you. I've tried to address your concerns as best I can. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:26, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
Coord note[edit]
Don't think we've had an image review here. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:22, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
- For the sake of my time I'll comment only on images which actually have problems:
- File:RFA Tidepool (A76) underway c1982.JPEG: Source link is broken. Also, I don't see that ship mentioned in the section.
- Three paragraphs down. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 12:43, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
- The link isn't broken, but you now need a US military login. I've uploaded (and switched to) NARA's version of the same image (File:A port bow view of the British large fleet tanker HMS TIDEPOOL (A 76) underway.jpg). It is the exact same image (sime image number), but not cropped. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:01, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
- Three paragraphs down. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 12:43, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
- File:RFA Stromness DN-SC-87-05079.jpeg: I don't see this ship mentioned in the section, either.
- ten paragraphs up. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 12:43, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
- MOS:IMAGES: "An image should generally be placed in the most relevant article section." MOS:LAYOUT: "Sections start at the second level (
==Heading 2==), with subsections at the third level (===Heading 3===)" So the section is "Shipping" Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:01, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
- MOS:IMAGES: "An image should generally be placed in the most relevant article section." MOS:LAYOUT: "Sections start at the second level (
- ten paragraphs up. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 12:43, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
- File:Soldiers Load a Rapier Missile System During London Olympics Security Exercise.jpg: I wonder if there is a source link.
- This is actually the wrong version of Rapier. Is there none from the correct period? WCMemail 00:16, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
- File:BAC Rapier fielded.png is the correct period version, shame its black and white. I had a go at the simulator of one of these, its not the easiest piece of kit to use and took a lot of skill. WCMemail 01:08, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
- This is actually the wrong version of Rapier. Is there none from the correct period? WCMemail 00:16, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
- File:HMS Bristol storing at Ascension Island 1982.JPG, File:Argentine prisoners of war - Port Stanley.JPG, File:Discarded weapons, Stanley 1982.JPG and File:Vulcan bomber 18 May 1982.JPG: What is "IAW Wikipedia rules"?
- File:Land.ops.2.en.svg: Aside from the vague filename, I wonder where the information on troop movements comes from.
- File:RFA Tidepool (A76) underway c1982.JPEG: Source link is broken. Also, I don't see that ship mentioned in the section.
- No ALT text anywhere. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:19, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
_underway_c1982.JPEG){kind=link}
_underway.jpg){kind=link}
Closing comment: I'm fairly sure that Fifelfoo's review covered sourcing, but I had a quick look myself at the formatting side of things and found no problems. Sarastro (talk) 23:09, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
- Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Sarastro (talk) 23:10, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- ^ Rick Jolly (May 2007). The Red and Green Life Machine. Maritime Books. pp. 93–94. ISBN 978-0-9514305-4-5.